The measuring of time via perioditization is an artificial construct to quantify a real effect. Einstein and minkowsky were able to show that the rate of perioditization is actually not empirically absolute since as you approach the speed of light the effects of time decay reduce exponentially in proportion to your speed. They also determined the effect to have a similar relationship to gravity, the less gravitational force the faster the rate and the more gravity the slower. Look up the synchronized clock experiments that were done after the advances in aviation, the effect happens independent of your ability to perceive it. If you want to say the concept of recording time by electrically stimulating a quartz crystal was destroyed that is fine, but also done earlier by French philosophers, until you lose mass and approach the speed of light you won't be escaping the effects of time decay though.
Technically no, I don't think Einstein was initially on board with the quantum mechanics, he is famously credited with the quote God does not play dice with the universe. Later in his life when they started turning out experimentally viable material he recanted but relativity wasn't really closely associated with quantum mechanics.
yeah that’s great that Einstein said that I guess but it’s not too relevant. Point is there’s a lot of things that we interpret as best we can from analysis of the surface but at the molecular level we still don’t understand how it’s happening. So when you say time is an artificial construct to describe a real effect that’s where my mind immediately went.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Language can he a poor impediment for conveying scientific data, if you are lacking in math to a point where you need someone to lower the dial to your understanding so to speak then inevitably it has to be dumbed down to your level. Time as a word in the English language and how we historically define that word and keep track of it via measurements was thought to be some sort of empirically absolute standard, eventually in the 1800s some French philosophers posited that it essentially wasn't. Einstein and minkowsky were able to prove it mathematically and it has been proven experimentally thereafter. If you doubt the truth of it you are more than welcome to prove it wrong here on the Chan. I'm all ears.
>time is not real and Hegel was right all along
Einstein just said the flow of time is relative. The concept of "time" can be defined as that which is measured by a clock, and a clock can be defined as any device which repeats an action consistently (i.e. without deviation). In this sense, time is a subjective, a priori mode of experience (a la Kant). Kant never asserted that time was real, he said that time was necessary for the interpretation of events; this is not refuted by Einstein or modern physics, since modern physics defines time by the way it appears to us (or more specifically the way it is measured by our devices). All we can know are the appearances of things, and Einstein's theory tells us what the appearance of things (in terms of their spatial-temporal elements) should be under various circumstances.
idk what Hegel said about time
>LMAO QUANTUM
You're a moronic homosexual who is scared of that which he does not understand.
Einstein's theories are rooted in geometric interpretations of space and time. QM is rooted more in symmetries than a specific geometry (i.e. it deals with symmetries of individual atoms rather than geometries of an aether-like fabric).
How does my post make me “scared”? You’re a pseud.
9 months ago
Anonymous
If you're not scared you're a coward. But cowardice and trepidation usually go hand in hand, so I'd say you're scared.
Your cowardice is manifest in your decision to type "LMAO QUANTUM". This insincere outburst is pure destructive rhetoric. The cowardly destroy without replacing that which they destroy. You attempt to tear down an idea without erecting another in its place, ergo you are a coward.
You dismiss it as something "we don't understand" because (you) don't understand it. It is only poorly understood by those who live with classical mechanics clouding their judgement, but we've had over 100 years to adjust to this. People didn't understand Newton at first either.
Can you define a pseud for me, please?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Who said I’m trying to “tear it down”? You mentally ill weirdo, it’s just a fact we don’t understand many processes completely. If we did we’d be able perform and explain a hell of a lot more. Kek you’re the one who sounds scared of this fact considering your little outburst here.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>cannot define a pseud >cannot create >can only destroy
like pottery
9 months ago
Anonymous
>thinks something is being le “”destroyed”” >thinks rhetoric can “””destroy””” a scientific inquiry >thinks we know everything, doesn’t understand the extent to which we still don’t know
You are a moronic homosexual
9 months ago
Anonymous
When adding to a conversation, one is either creating (adding their perspective) or destroying (stifling conversation with insincere remarks that offer no way forwards). The key distinction between a pseud and a true intellectual is that the intellectual can create. Naturally, the intellectual can pinpoint a flaw in someone's rhetoric, grammar, or logic, and correct it, but, moreover, he can create new ideas and inject them into the conversation. Contrast this to the pseud who, in a pathetic attempt to garner attention, flings shit at any intellectuals in the arena; she flails her arms about, screeches in caps lock, prefixes adjectives with "le", and masks her vacant cranial estate with a childish irony that is barely becoming on a fifteen year-old.
How does incompleteness imply incorrectness? If I say "2+2=4", that is an incomplete theory because it doesn't tell me about 2+3, however most people will agree it is a correct theory.
The hidden implications of this quote >Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
/lit/will never understand
time is not real??
wtf
Have you ever seen time?
Do you have to fricking see it to acknowledge you're getting older?
getting older isnt time idiot. its getting older.
then what makes you get older, dumbass?
My dying cells, of course.
Is dying not a process of change, and does change not necessitate time through the distinction of present and future?
Degeneration.
I've seen its consequences
yeah it's on my apple watch kiddo
He literally proved the opposite, that time is just a simple proverty of gravity
Heraclitvs lost…
>he doesn't know
Meaningless if you've actually read Einstein
The measuring of time via perioditization is an artificial construct to quantify a real effect. Einstein and minkowsky were able to show that the rate of perioditization is actually not empirically absolute since as you approach the speed of light the effects of time decay reduce exponentially in proportion to your speed. They also determined the effect to have a similar relationship to gravity, the less gravitational force the faster the rate and the more gravity the slower. Look up the synchronized clock experiments that were done after the advances in aviation, the effect happens independent of your ability to perceive it. If you want to say the concept of recording time by electrically stimulating a quartz crystal was destroyed that is fine, but also done earlier by French philosophers, until you lose mass and approach the speed of light you won't be escaping the effects of time decay though.
Is this just another thing that comes down to LMAO QUANTUM which we don’t understand?
Technically no, I don't think Einstein was initially on board with the quantum mechanics, he is famously credited with the quote God does not play dice with the universe. Later in his life when they started turning out experimentally viable material he recanted but relativity wasn't really closely associated with quantum mechanics.
yeah that’s great that Einstein said that I guess but it’s not too relevant. Point is there’s a lot of things that we interpret as best we can from analysis of the surface but at the molecular level we still don’t understand how it’s happening. So when you say time is an artificial construct to describe a real effect that’s where my mind immediately went.
Language can he a poor impediment for conveying scientific data, if you are lacking in math to a point where you need someone to lower the dial to your understanding so to speak then inevitably it has to be dumbed down to your level. Time as a word in the English language and how we historically define that word and keep track of it via measurements was thought to be some sort of empirically absolute standard, eventually in the 1800s some French philosophers posited that it essentially wasn't. Einstein and minkowsky were able to prove it mathematically and it has been proven experimentally thereafter. If you doubt the truth of it you are more than welcome to prove it wrong here on the Chan. I'm all ears.
>time is not real and Hegel was right all along
Einstein just said the flow of time is relative. The concept of "time" can be defined as that which is measured by a clock, and a clock can be defined as any device which repeats an action consistently (i.e. without deviation). In this sense, time is a subjective, a priori mode of experience (a la Kant). Kant never asserted that time was real, he said that time was necessary for the interpretation of events; this is not refuted by Einstein or modern physics, since modern physics defines time by the way it appears to us (or more specifically the way it is measured by our devices). All we can know are the appearances of things, and Einstein's theory tells us what the appearance of things (in terms of their spatial-temporal elements) should be under various circumstances.
idk what Hegel said about time
>LMAO QUANTUM
You're a moronic homosexual who is scared of that which he does not understand.
Einstein's theories are rooted in geometric interpretations of space and time. QM is rooted more in symmetries than a specific geometry (i.e. it deals with symmetries of individual atoms rather than geometries of an aether-like fabric).
How does my post make me “scared”? You’re a pseud.
If you're not scared you're a coward. But cowardice and trepidation usually go hand in hand, so I'd say you're scared.
Your cowardice is manifest in your decision to type "LMAO QUANTUM". This insincere outburst is pure destructive rhetoric. The cowardly destroy without replacing that which they destroy. You attempt to tear down an idea without erecting another in its place, ergo you are a coward.
You dismiss it as something "we don't understand" because (you) don't understand it. It is only poorly understood by those who live with classical mechanics clouding their judgement, but we've had over 100 years to adjust to this. People didn't understand Newton at first either.
Can you define a pseud for me, please?
Who said I’m trying to “tear it down”? You mentally ill weirdo, it’s just a fact we don’t understand many processes completely. If we did we’d be able perform and explain a hell of a lot more. Kek you’re the one who sounds scared of this fact considering your little outburst here.
>cannot define a pseud
>cannot create
>can only destroy
like pottery
>thinks something is being le “”destroyed””
>thinks rhetoric can “””destroy””” a scientific inquiry
>thinks we know everything, doesn’t understand the extent to which we still don’t know
You are a moronic homosexual
When adding to a conversation, one is either creating (adding their perspective) or destroying (stifling conversation with insincere remarks that offer no way forwards). The key distinction between a pseud and a true intellectual is that the intellectual can create. Naturally, the intellectual can pinpoint a flaw in someone's rhetoric, grammar, or logic, and correct it, but, moreover, he can create new ideas and inject them into the conversation. Contrast this to the pseud who, in a pathetic attempt to garner attention, flings shit at any intellectuals in the arena; she flails her arms about, screeches in caps lock, prefixes adjectives with "le", and masks her vacant cranial estate with a childish irony that is barely becoming on a fifteen year-old.
Relativity is an incomplete (and thus incorrect) theory. Parts are lacking. In the future, we'll find something to replace it.
How does incompleteness imply incorrectness? If I say "2+2=4", that is an incomplete theory because it doesn't tell me about 2+3, however most people will agree it is a correct theory.
The hidden implications of this quote
>Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
/lit/will never understand
>Proves that time is relative to the curvature of spacetime and Schopenhauer was right all along
ftfy
Time is just another word for personal existence.